No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

How do you know Hamilton was faster than Vettel in the 1st sector?, Vettel was stuck in the dirty air and most people suspect if the Ferrari was in front it would have pulled away. That's because it was the faster car.

Overtaking between a Ferrari and Mercedes will barely happen all season as they are so close on pace.

Based on this video comparison of the qually laps between Hamilton and Vettel, where the Mercedes is seen having and creating a 0.150 seconds advantage over Ferrari, not over the whole S1, but just on the 2nd half of it at the only place where you could realistically overtake a car... and I'd suspect that part of that advantage carried out throughout the race too.Which is why even with the help of a toe, Vettel's Ferrari couldnt yet gain enough momentum for an overtake.

The restart has been explained and why Vettel couldn't get a good tow, that was well defended by Hamilton and how Hamilton can overide the de-rate.Your talking about qualifying, I am talking about the races where Ferrari have been known to not just match Mercedes but some times beat them on race pace. So that's why I asked how do you know Hamilton was faster than Vettel in the 1st sector when Vettel was in the dirty air and the Ferrari is one of the best cars in the dirty air.

1) On normal laps, Hamilton and Vettel had both used 30% ERS by the end of the Kemmel straight. On the restart lap, Hamilton had used 50% and Vettel his usual 30%. Hamilton had the engine full on. If Vettel had done the same he likely would have had the lead.2) He had a big tyre advantage for only a few laps but no DRS, he could/should have not pushed the tyres so hard so early. Dropped back a bit and waited for DRS to be activated and then had a big push for 2 laps (1 to close the gap, 1 to attempt the pass). He seemed to be able to get within 1.2 of Hamilton when on equal tyres, he should have been able to get into DRS with that tyre advantage.

1) I thought only the Mercedes offered an override that let him use extra ERS? And the Ferrari is fully automated?2) Not sure I agree: the SC situation got him artificially close to Hamilton and so was the best chance.

It's entirely possible that the Ferrari had a potentially faster race pace, but if the Merc qualifies ahead and there's limited tactical space, then it's still the car to have. You ask why he couldn't have gone for the undercut - I think Merc pitted Hamilton early to prevent that.

1) On normal laps, Hamilton and Vettel had both used 30% ERS by the end of the Kemmel straight. On the restart lap, Hamilton had used 50% and Vettel his usual 30%. Hamilton had the engine full on. If Vettel had done the same he likely would have had the lead.2) He had a big tyre advantage for only a few laps but no DRS, he could/should have not pushed the tyres so hard so early. Dropped back a bit and waited for DRS to be activated and then had a big push for 2 laps (1 to close the gap, 1 to attempt the pass). He seemed to be able to get within 1.2 of Hamilton when on equal tyres, he should have been able to get into DRS with that tyre advantage.

1) I thought only the Mercedes offered an override that let him use extra ERS? And the Ferrari is fully automated?2) Not sure I agree: the SC situation got him artificially close to Hamilton and so was the best chance.

It's entirely possible that the Ferrari had a potentially faster race pace, but if the Merc qualifies ahead and there's limited tactical space, then it's still the car to have. You ask why he couldn't have gone for the undercut - I think Merc pitted Hamilton early to prevent that.

The second pitstops was going to be very interesting without the SC. Would have Vettel blinked first and tried to undercut Hamilton with the US tyre. If as some people say Hamilton would have needed to pit maybe Vettel could have changed to a 1 stopper.

Alternatively Mercedes could move first and pit Hamilton onto new soft tyres. There had been some blistering on the rear tyres and with memories fresh of what happened to Ferrari in Silverstone when they ignored that, there is a strong case for stopping Hamilton. The teams’ strategy models said that if they switch to a two stop at this stage, Ferrari would probably win the race. Then the Safety Car intervened.The blistering problem eased temporarily in the laps immediately before the Safety Car, so no move was made. In fact inspection of the soft tyres after the race suggests that Hamilton would have been in trouble to reach the end without the Safety Car intervening.So he was both unlucky and lucky, in a sense, that it did.

No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

How do you know Hamilton was faster than Vettel in the 1st sector?, Vettel was stuck in the dirty air and most people suspect if the Ferrari was in front it would have pulled away. That's because it was the faster car.

Overtaking between a Ferrari and Mercedes will barely happen all season as they are so close on pace.

Based on this video comparison of the qually laps between Hamilton and Vettel, where the Mercedes is seen having and creating a 0.150 seconds advantage over Ferrari, not over the whole S1, but just on the 2nd half of it at the only place where you could realistically overtake a car... and I'd suspect that part of that advantage carried out throughout the race too.Which is why even with the help of a toe, Vettel's Ferrari couldnt yet gain enough momentum for an overtake.

The restart has been explained and why Vettel couldn't get a good tow, that was well defended by Hamilton and how Hamilton can overide the de-rate.Your talking about qualifying, I am talking about the races where Ferrari have been known to not just match Mercedes but some times beat them on race pace. So that's why I asked how do you know Hamilton was faster than Vettel in the 1st sector when Vettel was in the dirty air and the Ferrari is one of the best cars in the dirty air.

I already explained to you... Mercedes seemed to create a 0.150 advantage on the 2nd part of 1st sector alone in qualies, and not all of it could possibly evaporate on the race day.

Its not just about restarts where the car characteristics to get the tires in optimal temperature faster or the different compound might have played a part on Vettel closing up. Its no coincidence that Vettel never managed to close in on Hamilton apart from the start and restart. I was looking at the live timing sector by sector during the race, and in the overwhelming majority of the laps(restarts apart), Vettel always seemed to lose few thousands during S1.

And when considering that in SPA - S1, the gains the slipstream brings outweighs by far the negative effects of the dirty air, I cant think of any other reason why Vettel couldnt make any grounds on S1 (mostly, loosing) during the race, other than, that Mercedes was faster in S1 during the race too.

The only reason this argument is being had is because Hamilton is not a dominant driver, as if you actually look at it from the point of view that Hamilton should have won the races Bottas won, the title race will now have had to depend on a Hamilton DNF for Vettel to have a look in.

Yeah Russia was a Ferrari track, front row lockout and only lost because Bottas jumped them off the line and held on.

If memory serves the Ferrari's pulled away fine but the Mercedes grunt kicked in on the long run to T1 and they had no answer. And I'm not sure whether Vettel would've come so close to Bottas at the end if Bottas hadn't flatspotted a tyre.

I also think there was something to the qualifying laps, IIRC the Merc should have had pole when combining the best sectors from the Q3 runs but the drivers didn't put a good complete lap together while the Ferrari's pretty much put their best sector times together. Although I would have to check this.

I also have this idea about "relatively equal" => even with the Ferrari good on race pace, if the Merc is still the pole car and tactical options are limited, then "relatively equal" buys Ferrari nothing and the Mercedes is still the car to have. That's why I can't agree with 4/3/5.

I don't agree with all of them but on Russia I think I've changed my mind and agree with lamo. I haven't seen the sectors to be fair so if it's a noticeable gap to the Ferrari's best sectors maybe I'd reconsider again but anytime a car locks out a front row I'm going to be sceptical they were suffering a performance deficit in qualy. And I think race pace has been a Ferrari forte so gut instinct feels Ferrari were on top but because of things you and lamo mentioned I moved to a hard to call type one.

I do agree the quali advantage elsewhere is more decisive to the outcome than what is probably being giving credit to, by me as well. It does limit your race pace and dirty air effectively cancels it out if it's not a massive advantage which just doesn't look likely.

Bahrain is a weird one for me. Big quali gap for Mercedes but a relatively easy win for Seb but I don't think Lewis was very good on the Sunday with his start and the penalty so I think that may belong to Mercedes.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

The only reason this argument is being had is because Hamilton is not a dominant driver, as if you actually look at it from the point of view that Hamilton should have won the races Bottas won, the title race will now have had to depend on a Hamilton DNF for Vettel to have a look in.

Who is a dominant driver?

The only recent season I can think of where a driver who won the WDC's team mate didn't win a race was 2013 with Vettel. But then Webber won 4 races in 2010, 2 in 2012 and 1 in 2011. Even Schumachers 5 Ferrari title wins, Rubens won races on merit in 4 of the 5 years.

I think you have to go back to 2001 to find the next season, then 1994, then 1986. 4 times in 35 years?

Yeah Russia was a Ferrari track, front row lockout and only lost because Bottas jumped them off the line and held on.

If memory serves the Ferrari's pulled away fine but the Mercedes grunt kicked in on the long run to T1 and they had no answer. And I'm not sure whether Vettel would've come so close to Bottas at the end if Bottas hadn't flatspotted a tyre.

That is standard this year, the driver starting P2 is favourite into turn 1 on the long runs to the first corner. The slipstream effect is much larger with this much draggier cars.

Russia is also a track where the leader usually comes under threat, in three of the four races there the leader has been in 2nd place as they arrived at the braking zone. Hamilton lost the lead to Rosberg in 2014 but Nico out braked himself and Hamilton was ahead on the road in 2015 but Nico had the inside line and held on.

2016 is the only year the leader didn't get attacked and that was because Bottas himself (p2) made a bad start and was overtaken by Raikkonen (p3) into turn one.

No way in Spain did Mercedes have the advantage. Ferrari was clear favourites and should have won that race but with the VSC and Bottas holding up Vettel it helped Hamilton out alot. I haven't read anything that said Mercedes had the advantage.

In Russia Ferrari got pole and it wasn't exactly a dominate race by Mercedes, also the same could be said of Austria. The gap at the end was nothing.

In Spa the Ferrari was the quicker car. It clearly was in the race and without the safety car could have has a better chance of winning the race Not sure how Mercedes had an advantage.

Mercedes had an advantage in qualifyings, and crucially, was also faster on the 1st sector during the race which was the only realistic part of the track where an overtaking between Ferrari and Mercedes could take place.

If as you say, Ferrari had to rely on outsmarting Mercedes on strategy in order to win, then clearly Mercedes had the right kind of "advantage" that really counts for the SPA race, regardless of whether Ferrari might have had a marginally better race-pace or not.

Yes, think people are missing this point and underestimating, or else simply ignoring, the value of the Mercedes qualifying advantage at most tracks. Defending the lead is much easier than trying to figure out how to make a successful pass

Which car will be better in the rain? The first test today, something that could be pivotal in the WDC race as it has been unusually dry this season thus far.

I'm backing Ferrari. That traction we saw in Spa was unreal and I think they'll be stronger in S2 with S1+S3 deficit to Mercedes dampened a bit with the rain.

Egg on face incoming!.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Which car will be better in the rain? The first test today, something that could be pivotal in the WDC race as it has been unusually dry this season thus far.

I'm backing Ferrari. That traction we saw in Spa was unreal and I think they'll be stronger in S2 with S1+S3 deficit to Mercedes dampened a bit with the rain.

Egg on face incoming!.

Yes, the Ferrari traction out of slow corners is amazing, but there are only 2 corners they can take advantage of that here. Mercedes got the rest of the lap covered imo.

And Hamilton is out there teaching a lesson on how to drive in the wet.

Egg everywhere. No idea how the Williams and FI drivers did that to the Ferrari, I'm stunned.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Yeah I don't think Ferrari will be hoping for any wet races coming up...

I'm not convinced by today though, Kimi was a bit at sea all day but Vettel was up there in inter conditions. It was only the full wet conditions which made the Ferrari go missing, so I'm guessing it was an issue in the setup.

If you look at the gap from Hamilton to everyone else it's pretty much what you'd expect between Ferrari/Mercedes and the others. And Bottas would have slotted into a comfortable second if not for messing up his final run, before that he was generally around half a second behind Lewis all day.

My gut feeling is Ferrari just messed something up in the setup and in another wet race they would be a lot closer if not maybe equal with Mercedes.

Ferrari were strong on the inter but absolutely no where on the wet, very curious situation. 1 second behind a Williams driven by a rookie is quite incredible. If you told me there would be 1 second between Stroll and the fastest Ferrari in a straight fight - I would place my house on Ferrari being ahead.

That was a bit mysterious the way Ferrari struggled in the full wet conditions. Hamilton did some really impressive laps here. Vettel was looking like P2 when they were on inters then just dropped way off. Not sure what characteristics of the Ferrari explain the difference but it was clear that both drivers were far stronger in intermediate conditions.

Yeah really strange the performance difference between the Inters and Wets. Must have struggled to get heat into them for some reason.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Ever since Canada, Mercedes have enjoyed roughly a 2011-Red Bull advantage over the rest of the field.

Pretty much, the best car but pretty close to the 2nd best on occasions.

Mercedes if they win tomorrow should have had 6 wins in 7 over that period, that is without the headrest issue in Baku of course. So they are delivering on that advantage. Vettels excellent 1-2-1-2-2-1 finishing rate before the Mercedes stepped up is keeping him in the championship, he is likely to have 1 win 7 after tomorrows race.

It's only because alot of circuits which benefit Mercedes have come after Monaco. Finishing results have looked like 2011 but the Redbull was ridicolous. How often does the Mercedes finish way up he road from Ferrari? Hardly ever. Ferrari could have won in Austria and Spa so they wasn't exactly dominant for Mercedes.Not being able to overtake and one stop races help the leader into turn 1. One stop races are very boring.

Problem is no one will know about Monza now, both cars running different races and people will just say the Mercedes was dominant because it will most likely win. Look at Spa and most reports say the Ferrari would have won if the SC didn't come out, Far from expected.

Ever since Canada, Mercedes have enjoyed roughly a 2011-Red Bull advantage over the rest of the field.

I'd somewhat agree. A very slight but consistent edge.

Interestingly I've always believed an inform Hamilton would have put up a bit of a challenge for that championship. Vettel's best season to date IMO.

In form Hamilton and everything working well at Mclaren he could have stayed on the edge of a title fight that year but its doubtful he could win it. There is a quote from a Mclaren engineer that Mclaren in the second half of the year was approximately equal to the the Red Bull overall but not the first half. Vettel should have won 7 of the first 8 races and would have without the skid on the last lap in Canada.

Jenson Button had a very strong second half to the year, I don't think he suddenly became a top driver for half a season - Hamilton was just off form during that period or up and down in form at best and a bit unlucky in some races too.

It's only because alot of circuits which benefit Mercedes have come after Monaco. Finishing results have looked like 2011 but the Redbull was ridicolous. How often does the Mercedes finish way up he road from Ferrari? Hardly ever. Ferrari could have won in Austria and Spa so they wasn't exactly dominant for Mercedes.Not being able to overtake and one stop races help the leader into turn 1. One stop races are very boring.

Problem is no one will know about Monza now, both cars running different races and people will just say the Mercedes was dominant because it will most likely win. Look at Spa and most reports say the Ferrari would have won if the SC didn't come out, Far from expected.

The 2011 Red Bull was challenged close for the win about 10 times in 19 races, Vettel finished behind another car in 7 races.

It's only because alot of circuits which benefit Mercedes have come after Monaco. Finishing results have looked like 2011 but the Redbull was ridicolous. How often does the Mercedes finish way up he road from Ferrari? Hardly ever. Ferrari could have won in Austria and Spa so they wasn't exactly dominant for Mercedes.Not being able to overtake and one stop races help the leader into turn 1. One stop races are very boring.

Problem is no one will know about Monza now, both cars running different races and people will just say the Mercedes was dominant because it will most likely win. Look at Spa and most reports say the Ferrari would have won if the SC didn't come out, Far from expected.

Indeed. Most reports say Ferrari was actually the quicker car in Spa. Ferrari was close in races like Austria, quickest in Hungary etc. Post Canada, Merc’s advantage has been marginal. I understand the comparisons to RB but at the same time, it's bit of a red herring imo. Gives off a false impression of dominance.

It's only because alot of circuits which benefit Mercedes have come after Monaco. Finishing results have looked like 2011 but the Redbull was ridicolous. How often does the Mercedes finish way up he road from Ferrari? Hardly ever. Ferrari could have won in Austria and Spa so they wasn't exactly dominant for Mercedes.Not being able to overtake and one stop races help the leader into turn 1. One stop races are very boring.

Problem is no one will know about Monza now, both cars running different races and people will just say the Mercedes was dominant because it will most likely win. Look at Spa and most reports say the Ferrari would have won if the SC didn't come out, Far from expected.

Indeed. Most reports say Ferrari was actually the quicker car in Spa. Ferrari was close in races like Austria, quickest in Hungary etc. Post Canada, Merc’s advantage has been marginal. I understand the comparisons to RB but at the same time, it's bit of a red herring imo. Gives off a false impression of dominance.

Similar to the race last season. Hamilton got a bad start and once Rosberg was leading into turn 1 and Hamilton had to work his way back to 2nd it was race over specially with a 1 stopper. The same could happen this year between the top 2 if Hamilton is leading at turn 1.

People just expect Mercedes to win because it's a circuit with long straights so if Hamilton does win it's just easy to say it was dominant because it was expected. Of course everything could change in the race and they lap the whole field .

Same could be said of Canada which Hamilton would most likely have won anyway but people say it was a dominant Mercedes win but Vettel was driving through traffic most of the time and on a different strategy.

Depends what people rate as dominant, I don't rate 0.6 or 2 seconds at the finish line as dominant cars.

It's only because alot of circuits which benefit Mercedes have come after Monaco. Finishing results have looked like 2011 but the Redbull was ridicolous. How often does the Mercedes finish way up he road from Ferrari? Hardly ever. Ferrari could have won in Austria and Spa so they wasn't exactly dominant for Mercedes.Not being able to overtake and one stop races help the leader into turn 1. One stop races are very boring.

Problem is no one will know about Monza now, both cars running different races and people will just say the Mercedes was dominant because it will most likely win. Look at Spa and most reports say the Ferrari would have won if the SC didn't come out, Far from expected.

Indeed. Most reports say Ferrari was actually the quicker car in Spa. Ferrari was close in races like Austria, quickest in Hungary etc. Post Canada, Merc’s advantage has been marginal. I understand the comparisons to RB but at the same time, it's bit of a red herring imo. Gives off a false impression of dominance.

Similar to the race last season. Hamilton got a bad start and once Rosberg was leading into turn 1 and Hamilton had to work his way back to 2nd it was race over specially with a 1 stopper. The same could happen this year between the top 2 if Hamilton is leading at turn 1.

People just expect Mercedes to win because it's a circuit with long straights so if Hamilton does win it's just easy to say it was dominant because it was expected. Of course everything could change in the race and they lap the whole field .

Same could be said of Canada which Hamilton would most likely have won anyway but people say it was a dominant Mercedes win but Vettel was driving through traffic most of the time and on a different strategy.

Depends what people rate as dominant, I don't rate 0.6 or 2 seconds at the finish line as dominant cars.

Overall this season there's nothing to separate between them. Mercedes have a clear advantage on Saturday (maybe that's the only thing that's anyways dominant between the two) but on balance I would say Ferrari have the better car on Sunday. The difficulty to overtake is playing into Mercedes' hands

Marchionne said yesterday that the remaining races look like they will suit Ferrari better. If Hamilton wins the title this year it will be won on Saturday

Be interesting to see what Ferrari's pace is like when they introduce the engine with the 0.9l limit, as its are rumoured to be the engine making the most gain out of burning excessive oil. If the Merc really did run with 0.9 at Spa and still just about kept Ferrari (Vettel) at bay, then it bodes well for the rest of the year.

_________________http://tsatr.mooo.comThe Sun and The Rain - The reluctant runner.

It's only because alot of circuits which benefit Mercedes have come after Monaco. Finishing results have looked like 2011 but the Redbull was ridicolous. How often does the Mercedes finish way up he road from Ferrari? Hardly ever. Ferrari could have won in Austria and Spa so they wasn't exactly dominant for Mercedes.Not being able to overtake and one stop races help the leader into turn 1. One stop races are very boring.

Problem is no one will know about Monza now, both cars running different races and people will just say the Mercedes was dominant because it will most likely win. Look at Spa and most reports say the Ferrari would have won if the SC didn't come out, Far from expected.

Indeed. Most reports say Ferrari was actually the quicker car in Spa. Ferrari was close in races like Austria, quickest in Hungary etc. Post Canada, Merc’s advantage has been marginal. I understand the comparisons to RB but at the same time, it's bit of a red herring imo. Gives off a false impression of dominance.

Similar to the race last season. Hamilton got a bad start and once Rosberg was leading into turn 1 and Hamilton had to work his way back to 2nd it was race over specially with a 1 stopper. The same could happen this year between the top 2 if Hamilton is leading at turn 1.

People just expect Mercedes to win because it's a circuit with long straights so if Hamilton does win it's just easy to say it was dominant because it was expected. Of course everything could change in the race and they lap the whole field .

Same could be said of Canada which Hamilton would most likely have won anyway but people say it was a dominant Mercedes win but Vettel was driving through traffic most of the time and on a different strategy.

Depends what people rate as dominant, I don't rate 0.6 or 2 seconds at the finish line as dominant cars.

Overall this season there's nothing to separate between them. Mercedes have a clear advantage on Saturday (maybe that's the only thing that's anyways dominant between the two) but on balance I would say Ferrari have the better car on Sunday. The difficulty to overtake is playing into Mercedes' hands

Marchionne said yesterday that the remaining races look like they will suit Ferrari better. If Hamilton wins the title this year it will be won on Saturday

Also 1 stoppers help Mercedes. The lack of strategy oppurtunities for Ferrari mean they can't be aggressive or try different compounds. It would make for more exciting races.

Since Canada, Mercedes have been faster than Ferrari in every race apart from Hungary. What makes you think this trend will suddenly change?

Vettel's season feels like Schumacher in 1998. No matter how good you drive, the superior car always comes through in the end.

It won't change, the mercedes PU is still way in front, the only thing that has masked it was ferrari did an awesome job and got their car spot on with these regs at the start of the season and mercedes didn't, now mercedes have figured that part out it's bore-fest business as usual.

Since Canada, Mercedes have been faster than Ferrari in every race apart from Hungary. What makes you think this trend will suddenly change?

Vettel's season feels like Schumacher in 1998. No matter how good you drive, if your car isn't good enough you won't win.

I think Ferrari was faster in Spa, most pundits and anaylists thought the same.Austria was it 0.6 at the finish. Then there was obviously Baku, Monza, Silverstone, Canada. Just alot of tracks which suit the Merc.

Singapore will suit Ferrari. After that its anyones guess. Depends on temperatures, Ferraris new engine update etc.

You can look at every track and see advantages for Merc and Ferrari.

Like Brazil has the twisty middle sector but the straight uphill in the 3rd sector. Japan and Abu Dhabi have sectors like that.

Vettel will be back in the lead after Singapore then I see it as a race by race scenario.